Background: Pancreatic and oesophagogastric (OG) cancers have a dismal prognosis and high symptom burden, with supportive care forming an integral component of the care provided to patients. This study aimed to explore the supportive care experiences of patients and caregivers living with pancreatic and OG cancers in order to identify perceived opportunities for improvement. Methods: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with people living with pancreatic and OG cancers, and their caregivers, across Victoria, Australia during 2020. Interviews were thematically analysed to identify common themes. Results: Forty-one participants were interviewed, including 30 patients and 11 caregivers. Three overarching themes, each with multiple sub-themes, were identified: (i) inadequate support for symptoms and issues across the cancer journey (ii) caregiver’s desire for greater support, and (iii) a multidisciplinary care team is the hallmark of a positive supportive care experience. Generally, those who had access to a cancer care coordinator and/or a palliative care team recounted more positive supportive care experiences. Conclusion: Unmet needs are prevalent across the pancreatic and OG cancer journey, with supportive care provided to varying levels of satisfaction. Greater awareness of and access to high-quality multidisciplinary support services is greatly desired by both patients with pancreatic and OG cancer and their caregivers.@en

Background: This study: (i) assessed compliance with a consensus set of quality indicators (QIs) in pancreatic cancer (PC); and (ii) evaluated the association between compliance with these QIs and survival. Methods: Four years of data were collected for patients diagnosed with PC. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A multivariable analysis tested the relationship between significant patient and hospital characteristics, patient cluster effects within hospitals and survival. Results: 1061 patients were eligible for this study. Significant association with improved survival were: (i) in the potentially resectable group having adjuvant chemotherapy administered following surgery or a reason documented (HR, 0.29; 95 CI, 0.19–0.46); (ii) in the locally advanced group included having chemotherapy ± chemoradiation, or a reason documented for not undergoing treatment (HR, 0.38; 95 CI, 0.25–0.58); and (iii) in the metastatic disease group included having documented performance status at presentation (HR, 0.65; 95 CI, 0.47–0.89), being seen by an oncologist in the absence of treatment (HR, 0.48; 95 CI, 0.31–0.77), and disease management discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting (HR, 0.79; 95 CI, 0.64–0.96). Conclusion: Capture of a concise data set has enabled quality of care to be assessed.@en